Meaning, instead of trying to pile on more layers of bureaucracy to "solve" a perceived problem, should we look to start repealing laws.

Why not have the churches reclaim what they abdicated? Why not have churches define marriage according to their faith's beliefs and have corresponding legal contracts available to the couples they are marrying? For those who don't need or want the church blessing, they can enter into a civil contract that is legally binding.

Having the church directly involved in setting up those civil contracts for their followers would strengthen their version of marriage. For instance, Catholics may require classes before marrying a couple. After fulfilling those requirements, they can be married in the church and the church will file the proper contracts on their behalf.

I would think that THIS method of thinking of the issue would do more to strengthen marriage than banning certain people from the practice. Violating the terms of your civil contract would constitute breach of contract. The church-sanctioned contracts could also have provisions for counselling with members of the church.

Actually, there are plenty of Boy Scout Troops and Cub Scout Packs who welcome volunteers--straight and gay. The gay volunteers are respectful in the same way that the straight ones are. They look at the program as a whole and choose to volunteer their time to help make boys more responsible and respectful.

Would preserving the institution of marriage include getting rid of divorce? Jailing people who commit adultery? Bulldozing the 24-hour chapels in Vegas?

Has it occurred to anyone from either side of this issue that marriage should not be a government issue?

Why can't any consenting adults enter into contractual agreements with each other? Why do our various levels of government bestow certain privileges to only those contracts between a man and a woman? Why should these unions get preferential treatment over any single person?

If a church blesses unions of which you do not approve or refuses to honor those you do approve, you can attend & donate to another church.

If we are really in pursuit of smaller government and more freedom, shouldn't we approach this issue in such a way? The point is that the government has overstepped on the issue of marriage when the church gave it away. The government needs to get back to the very limited powers outlined in the Constitution.

Giving special tax treatment, legal treatment, medical treatment, etc. to a favored group is unfair, no matter the make up of that group.

So, the REAL solution to this is to get rid of ALL marriage licensing. Get rid of the IRS recognition of a marriage and its different treatment from single people or people in other familial relationships.

Shouldn't our tax laws treat all people equally, regardless of marital status? Do we really need the government's permission to form a family--gay, straight, two-person, multi-person? Believe it or not, plenty of those in the Tea Party movement believe in the government getting out of our lives: http://bit.ly/QaaiY

Sexually deviant in YOUR mind. To ensure freedom is to put your personal values aside. Think of freedom of speech. While most believe that what the KKK says is offensive, those dedicated to preserving freedom would fight for their right to speak. Meanwhile, we can approach them and try to persuade them to think otherwise, using our free speech.

If you believe that people who engage in consensual relationships are "deviant," you should work to impress your values on them if that is your choice. However, to use the force of government to impress your values is lazy and wrong.